 Poster: A snowHead
|
Lots and lots of helmet discussion for understandable reasons. However there appears to be little discussion or advice to users about helmet standards, it strikes me that there must be a variation in the protection that Ski helmets provide. Reading around the subject the more demanding helmet standards are the SNELL standards, yet there are no helmets listed in the Wintersport section on the Snell Foundation website.
Strikes me that it would be very easy to have over confidence in a more than useless helmet.
Does anyone have any informed opinion on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
the standard for Ski Helmets is EN1077
If it meets that standard then it is deemed fit for snowsport use.
Dont forget that this standard is the minimum so you will never know if a helmet just passed or passed the spec by miles
Simon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
DavidYacht, a somewhat dated (2005) survey of the CEN, Snell and ASTM standards is here:
http://www.telemarktips.com/Helmets.html
Does this quote answer your question:
| Quote: |
So why is it that no ski and snowboard helmet makers currently participate in Snell's certification program? In a phone interview with Snell's Executive Director Ed Becker recently, we were told that there are several reasons. "Skiers and snowboarders just don't seem to be interested in buying Snell approved helmets," said Becker. "Part of the reason may be fashion. Our impact standards are a little higher which may require manufacturers to design thicker, bulkier, and heavier helmets in order to pass our tests." Ed Becker also explained that another reason why the foundation has had much more success signing up manufacturers of helmets made for motorsports, than for skiing and snowboarding, is that "the sanctioning bodies in competitive motorsports very often require participants to use Snell certified helmets." In snowsports, competition remains a very small and far less influential part of the market.
Still another reason: cost. "Manufacturers have to be willing to pay the fees Snell certification requires," said Becker. "Apparently the makers of ski and snowboard helmets are not willing to do so. It's not a lot of money but there is definitely some cost to the manufacturer." Indeed there is. A quick look at the Foundation's Price List reveals that manufacturers seeking Snell certification are required to pay for initial certification for each model, as well as for the Foundation's "approved" labels. In addition the helmet maker must agree to reimburse Snell for the cost of the random testing program, including the expenses incurred in acquisition and testing of the helmets, up to 1% of of the total number of each model helmet produced. With more than 600,000 ski and snowboard helmets sold in the U.S. last year, a manufacturer with significant market share could find itself on the hook for considerably more than pocket change, and for a testing service that essentially duplicates its own necessary efforts. Without demand from individual recreational skiers and snowboarders, or the groups involved in promoting snowsports competition, it's unlikely that we will see Snell Memorial Foundation certification stickers on ski or snowboard helmets in the near future. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Thanks for the heads up.
The points made are valid, I work in CE marking and the supporting EN ISO standards for recreational craft, my experience in a field that I consider myself highly qualified is that the CE marking system is flawed. As has already been stated the committee's that write the standards are mainly industry insiders if not manufacturers, who have vested interests in dumbing down standards, secondly there is a wide range of variance in the inspection/quality processes of notified bodies in different countries which have their own commercial interests, finally the enforcement organizations are government agencies, where CE marking is very low down their priority lists.
Another fault of the CE marking system is that it encourages manufacturers to achieve the minimum acceptable standards, rather than strive to offer a better or safer product.
So IMO whether my helmet has a CE mark or not is of questionable value, hence the Snell approach struck me as one that had its merits and MIGHT be of greater value. Hence if a manufacture put themselves up for Snell testing they might be perceived to be offering a better product.
There is a lot of discussion as to whether helmets are worthwhile, and data would suggest that there may only be marginal benefits, if any at all. Common sense would suggest that there must be some benefits, at least in reducing the severity of impacts.
However I wonder how scientific and researched the design of a Euro 50 helmet is, and whether with clever materials and proper research, helmets could be designed that offered better protection and genuinely did increase higher impact survivability for helmet wearers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| DavidYacht wrote: |
So IMO whether my helmet has a CE mark or not is of questionable value, hence the Snell approach struck me as one that had its merits and MIGHT be of greater value. Hence if a manufacture put themselves up for Snell testing they might be perceived to be offering a better product. |
Couldn't agree more.
I also think third agency testing could provide some (not much, perhaps, but some) resistance to illegitimate standards compliance tags from offshore suppliers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| comprex wrote: |
| moffatross, ski and snowsport helmets are not a regulated product at present. |
(from another thread)
OK, after reading about, I agree that the labels on helmets mean very little other than adherance to a broad design guide. Ski and board helmet making could then become a boom business for a while prior to the season when a regulated standard is adopted by international insurance companies and a 'helmet, head and brain injury clause' in our winter sports insurance specifically strikes out non-wearers of the newly approved standard.
Hundreds of thousands of helmets will likely be thrown away because the old ones don't have the approval tag to meet whatever insurance standard is adopted. It also looks like that momentum might start in Canada.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jY3qUJX9EwseLApcWLzZm934aHtw
"The proposed safety helmet standards law is backed by the Canadian Medical Association, the Alzheimer Society of Canada, the Brain Injury Association of Canada, and the Insurance Bureau of Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't quite work out if you think that this is a good thing or a bad thing! My view is that if I am going to wear a helmet I wan't one that can offer the best protection technology can provide ... I am not convinced that this is the case at present
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
My (completely uninformed!) 2p-worth:
| Quote: |
if I am going to wear a helmet I wan't one that can offer the best protection technology can provide
|
I don't DavidYacht, becoz that would mean skiing/climbing/wakeboarding/whatever in something resembling a giant motorcycle helmet. Like most helmet wearers, I just want something that offers an "appropriate" level of protection for the risks/speeds involved in the sport I happen to be doing, that is fairly light and comfortable, and doesn't cost the earth. If you think the current standards are not right I'll have to take your word for it, but most punters (like me) see these safety standards as a convenient rubber stamp (even if they do lull us into a slightly false sense of security) becoz we don't have the knowledge to make an informed decision.
How about an NCAP-style rating where helmets are given a certain number of stars based on how well they protect the wearer? Some committee somewhere could have fun coming up with that one! Joe Public could then see straight away if his cheapie helmet was barely legal, or whether it was worth paying more for something a bit more solid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Ice Perv, I think that you have a point about NCAP rating. I wear a helmet, its my choice, and I would not be sanctimonious about saying everyone should wear one, just as I make a decision whether to wear a life jacket or not, and would be very upset if a law required me to wear one.
The point I am trying to make is that I don't think that the helmets that I have seen are particularly clever or take advantage of technology. Yes I agree that weight and size are a trade off, but I think that some of the helmets I see are more style over substance.
If the helmets available are not much better than a wooly hat, then I would accept that the anti-helmet lobby have a fair point, and if this were proven to be the case I would revert back to my wooly hat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
DavidYacht, Another way to look at this is to review what ski racers are wearing on the world cup circuit and buy one of those...... I had two severe concussions last year, one while wearing a popular model vented "bicycle type" ski helmet. I now have a POC race helmet which seems to be one of the top manufacturers of ski helmets and gives me a very good fit compared to my previous one.
Not ideal perhapsand i agree that a rating system would be good as opposed to just meeting CE minimum standards, but by using a helmet that a downhill racer uses at high speeds you should get the best protection that is on the market.
comprex, thanks for posting the Telemark tips article link, that is the best and most balance article i have seen on helmet usage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Interesting idea. Think about the full weight rigid helmet you have to legally wear to ride a 30mph moped and then look at how flimsy most ski helmets are as you are crusing past tress at 50mph
My Giro G10 is nearly twice as thick and covers a lot more of my head than many of the helmets being sold in resorts for a third of the price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
